Well, I can give a Gemini perspective, FTR.
The Gemini consumer community is primarily composed of application
developers using OSGi. They have a bunch of bundles and they want to
install them in a framework. They may or may not be using Equinox or
even Eclipse. They often aren't installing many Gemini projects into
the IDE so they don't care if they are in the common P2 repo. There
are exceptions, of course, but apart from Gunnar and one or two
other people involved in Eclipse projects we have not even had
people ask for P2 access.
Take the project that I work the most on as an example. I do most of
Gemini JPA solo, and it isn't my "regular job" so I simply don't
have time to spend (or more accurately don't want to devote the time
that I spend on the project) on management and release
infrastructure tasks over and above what is absolutely necessary to
get the bits into people's hands. Also, with insufficient or
out-of-date documentation, I get frustrated too quickly and easily
trying to figure out technologies that I am expected to use.
So in summary, it's not that we "don't want" to be on the release
train, but more about just not wanting the extra work of figuring
out all of the things that will be expected of us to be on there. If
someone said, "Hey, give us your bundles and we will do the work of
putting them in the right place and doing the work that is necessary
for them to be there" then we would gratefully hand over our wares.
However, we don't reasonably expect that from anyone, and given the
lack of any significant advantage that we can discern to being on
that train we have not been frothing to go down that path ourselves.
Having said all this, it was already listed as an agenda item to
discuss on our upcoming Gemini project leads call. Ya never know...
-Mike
On 22/08/2012 10:36 AM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
To
be clear - I don't think this perspective is just a
Jesse/Jetty thing. Gemini is not on the release train
either. Virgo wasn't exactly enthusiastic about the idea as
far as I could tell.
I
agree with your points Mike and I would like to hear from
Jesse what improvements can be made to the process and
what value could be added that would have kept jetty on
the release train.
Tom
 "Mike
Milinkovich" ---08/22/2012 09:16:06 AM---Just a suggestion
- feel free to ignore.
Just
a suggestion - feel free to ignore.
It
seems to me that we have a general issue with EclipseRT
and the release train. More specifically, I think there is
a sense that the release train is of less value to the RT
projects. Or that the process is more burdensome for them.
Jetty's recent announcement that they're not planning to
participate in Kepler is a concrete example of this.
Perhaps
a general conversation about what makes the release train
more difficult or of less value to the RT projects would
be helpful? What could be done to change that for the RT
community?
Of
course, it's possible that I am completely out to lunch on
this perception. It wouldn't be the first time :)
From: rt-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rt-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ian Bull
Sent: August-22-12 9:49 AM
To: Runtime Project PMC mailing list
Subject: [rt-pmc] Juno Retrospective
Hi everyone,
The planning council is interested in feedback on the Juno
Release. If you have anything (good or bad) that you would
like to add to the Juno Retrospective, please follow up here
and I'll pass the comments along to the planning council.
Also, the Kepler schedule has been finalized. You can see it
here [1].
[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Kepler/Simultaneous_Release_Plan#Schedule
Cheers,
Ian
--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com |
http://twitter.com/eclipsesource_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
|
